Progress Party uses non-RxUSA Judicial suggestions when it comes to interpreting constitutional rights. The Progress Party thinks that your constitutional right to bear arms is "non-absolute". Troubling...
Log inLog inLoading Republic…Loading Republic…Log inProgress Party uses non-RxUSA Judicial suggestions when it comes to interpreting constitutional rights. The Progress Party thinks that your constitutional right to bear arms is "non-absolute". Troubling...
Heller affirmed an individual right to bear arms and also noted it has limits. Both are true. The Act doesn’t categorically ban semi-automatics or the ownership of any weapons for that matter and provides the ability to get a license. #notlegaladvice
🚫 CLAIM: Attorney General nominee (presumptive) sapienz_a claims that the Automatic Firearms Safety Act of 2026 is unconstitutional and infringes upon the right to bear arms.
✅ FACT: The Automatic Firearms Safety Act of 2026 does not prohibit individuals from owning semi-automatic firearms, and the definitions outlined in the act are tailored to the functions of firearms. Real-life courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as a non-absolute right in regulating exotic or uncommon firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).
